Cargando…

Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded tr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wouters, Y., Theilla, M., Singer, P., Tribler, S., Jeppesen, P. B., Pironi, L., Vinter‐Jensen, L., Rasmussen, H. H., Rahman, F., Wanten, G. J. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904
_version_ 1783348663497523200
author Wouters, Y.
Theilla, M.
Singer, P.
Tribler, S.
Jeppesen, P. B.
Pironi, L.
Vinter‐Jensen, L.
Rasmussen, H. H.
Rahman, F.
Wanten, G. J. A.
author_facet Wouters, Y.
Theilla, M.
Singer, P.
Tribler, S.
Jeppesen, P. B.
Pironi, L.
Vinter‐Jensen, L.
Rasmussen, H. H.
Rahman, F.
Wanten, G. J. A.
author_sort Wouters, Y.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre‐existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre‐existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention‐to‐treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04‐0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre‐existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03‐1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug‐related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre‐existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6099431
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60994312018-08-24 Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition Wouters, Y. Theilla, M. Singer, P. Tribler, S. Jeppesen, P. B. Pironi, L. Vinter‐Jensen, L. Rasmussen, H. H. Rahman, F. Wanten, G. J. A. Aliment Pharmacol Ther Randomised Clinical Trial BACKGROUND: The catheter lock solutions 2% taurolidine and 0.9% saline are both used to prevent catheter‐related bloodstream infections (CRBSIs) in home parenteral nutrition patients. AIMS: To compare the effectiveness and safety of taurolidine and saline. METHODS: This multicentre double‐blinded trial randomly assigned home parenteral nutrition patients to use either 2% taurolidine or 0.9% saline for 1 year. Patients were stratified in a new catheter group and a pre‐existing catheter group. Primary outcome was the rate of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days in the new catheter group and pre‐existing catheter group, separately. RESULTS: We randomised 105 patients, of which 102 were analysed as modified intention‐to‐treat population. In the new catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.29 and 1.49 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04‐0.71; P = 0.009). In the pre‐existing catheter group, rates of CRBSIs/1000 catheter days were 0.39 and 1.32 in the taurolidine and saline arm respectively (relative risk, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.03‐1.82; P = 0.25). Excluding one outlier patient in the taurolidine arm, mean costs per patient were $1865 for taurolidine and $4454 for saline (P = 0.03). Drug‐related adverse events were rare and generally mild. CONCLUSIONS: In the new catheter group, taurolidine showed a clear decrease in CRBSI rate. In the pre‐existing catheter group, no superiority of taurolidine could be demonstrated, most likely due to underpowering. Overall, taurolidine reduced the risk for CRBSIs by more than four times. Given its favourable safety and cost profile, taurolidine locking should be considered as an additional strategy to prevent CRBSIs. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT01826526. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-07-05 2018-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6099431/ /pubmed/29978597 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Randomised Clinical Trial
Wouters, Y.
Theilla, M.
Singer, P.
Tribler, S.
Jeppesen, P. B.
Pironi, L.
Vinter‐Jensen, L.
Rasmussen, H. H.
Rahman, F.
Wanten, G. J. A.
Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title_full Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title_fullStr Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title_full_unstemmed Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title_short Randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
title_sort randomised clinical trial: 2% taurolidine versus 0.9% saline locking in patients on home parenteral nutrition
topic Randomised Clinical Trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6099431/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29978597
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14904
work_keys_str_mv AT woutersy randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT theillam randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT singerp randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT triblers randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT jeppesenpb randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT pironil randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT vinterjensenl randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT rasmussenhh randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT rahmanf randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition
AT wantengja randomisedclinicaltrial2taurolidineversus09salinelockinginpatientsonhomeparenteralnutrition